5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana.
6.  The applicant holds a degree in law since 1992 and passed the national bar exam (pravosodni izpit) in 1995.
7.  On 15 December 1997 he requested the Bar Association of Slovenia (Odvetniška zbornica Slovenije, the “BAS”) to register his name in the Registry of Attorneys (imenik odvetnikov) and thus enable him to start practicing law as an attorney. BAS subsequently asked the applicant to complete his application, which he did on 21 May 1998. In early June 1998, BAS forwarded the applicant’s request to the Ljubljana Regional Bar Assembly (Območni zbor odvetnikov v Ljubljani, the “LRBA”) to obtain an opinion on his moral character.
On 6 July 1998 the applicant filed an administrative action before the Administrative Court (Upravno sodišče) on the ground of the silence of the administrative authorities, because he did not receive a decision from BAS.
On 23 September 1998 LRBA decided unanimously that the applicant’s past behaviour did not show him worthy of the trust required of an attorney.
On 3 November 1998 BAS requested LRBA to provide an explanation for its decision and evidence to support it. BAS further found that while the applicant ran a detective agency, he engaged in practices that were not permitted by a detective licence. It was also established that he was abusive towards BAS’s employees and lodged a complaint with the disciplinary prosecutor of BAS against the president and the secretary of LRBA, thus availing himself of inappropriate means to achieve his goals.
Subsequently, the Commission of the Bar Association for the Determination of Compliance with the Conditions for Registration with the Directory of Attorneys (the “Commission”) decided to hear the applicant on the matter and invited him twice for a meeting, on 7 and 16 December 1998 respectively. He refused to attend the first hearing because the president of the Commission did not sign the summons with his own hand. As to the second invitation, the applicant informed the Commission that he had no intention of expressing his views on the subject.
On 17 December 1998 BAS rejected his request for registration. The decision was apparently served on the applicant on 16 January 1999.
8.   On 4 May 1999 the applicant amended his administrative action; firstly, he requested the court to find that BAS had not issued a decision within the time-limit required and, secondly, he sought an annulment of the decision.
On 30 June 1999 the Administrative Court quashed the BAS’s decision because the facts of the case needed to be more clearly established and remitted the case to BAS.
9.  On 17 August 1999 BAS appealed to the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 7 February 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was apparently served on the applicant on 23 February 2001 and the case remitted to BAS.
10.  BAS failed to issue a decision within the one-month time limit prescribed by law. The applicant twice urged BAS to issue a new decision.
11.  On 19 September 2001 the applicant brought another administrative action before the Administrative Court in which he complained of the lack of any response from BAS. He also requested the court to find that he had the right to practice law.
On 1 October 2001 the Administrative Court conducted a preliminary review of the claim. On 29 October 2001 BAS replied to the applicant’s action and submitted evidence.
On 6 November 2001 BAS, after reconsidering the applicant’s request, again rejected it. Apparently an oral hearing was held and the applicant was invited to participate in hearing the witnesses contesting his moral standing, but he sent a message that he would not attend. BAS heard six witnesses and took notice of several written documents. It found, among other things, that in the police investigation against one individual, the applicant pretended to be a practicing lawyer; and that while collecting debts for his clients as a detective, he sought a share in the collected money.
On 8 November 2001 the BAS’s decision was submitted to the Administrative Court.
On 6 December 2001 the applicant responded to the BAS’s decision and complained to the court about incomplete and wrongful finding of the facts.
On 12 November, 12 and 21 December 2001 the applicant requested a priority treatment of his case, which was granted by the court.
On 16 May 2002 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s action, because it found that BAS had complied with the court’s first ruling of 30 June 1999 and established the facts correctly and sufficiently. No hearing was held.
12.  On 14 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.
On 26 September and 26 October 2002 and 25 March 2003 the applicant requested the Supreme Court for a speedy decision.
On 17 September 2003 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal because the applicant’s submissions of 6 December 2001 had to be considered as a new application which required a hearing in the Administrative Court. The case was accordingly remitted to the Administrative Court.
13.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant requested the Administrative Court to render a decision promptly.
On 29 March and 4 and 8 June 2004 the applicant filed written submissions with the court, put forward new evidence and made comments to the BAS’s responses.
On 24 June 2004 the court held a hearing. Since both parties to the case agreed to try to settle the case, the court adjourned the hearing.
On 5 July 2004 the applicant requested BAS to make him an offer of friendly settlement. Since he received no response from BAS, he made another request to the court for a prompt decision on 13 September 2004.
On 11 and 26 October and 7 November 2004 the applicant filed written submissions.
On 3 December 2004 the court ruled in favour of the applicant, annulled the BAS’s decision of 6 November 2001 due to wrongful application of law and remitted the case to BAS to issue a new decision. The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2005.
14.  At an undetermined time the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court because the Administrative Court failed to decide that he had the right to practice law. BAS cross-appealed.
On 1 March 2005 the applicant received a letter from BAS informing him that, considering the negative opinion on his moral standing made by LRBA in 1998, his name could not be entered into the Registry of Attorneys.
On 25 August 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court. Accordingly, the case was remitted to BAS for re-examination. The decision was apparently served on the applicant on 13 September 2005.
The proceedings before BAS are still pending.